725,000 public sector jobs face axe, economist warns

marklv

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Thats funny, because they changed my redundancy terms and conditions 4 months ago and got away with it. :mad:

Where exactly do you work?

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

The tory party is the party of business. If they have to chose between cutting public services and harming businesses, the Tory party has always cut public spending.

And if they do they will face the consequences.

Wookster

Mark - perhaps I should have clarified - he left every Friday day to play golf.

Anyway I think you have proved my point exactly: Disconnected from the reality which we private sector workers deal with every day.

mbga9pgf

marklv wrote: »

Where exactly do you work?

Military. They gave us the same scheme that the CS whined like little b*tches to the high court about. We took it like men. They took it like nancy socialists.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Military. They gave us the same scheme that the CS whined like little b*tches to the high court about. We took it like men. They took it like nancy socialists.

It sounds like it was you that took it like a b1tch you like being shafted do you?

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

It sounds like it was you that took it like a b1tch you like being shafted do you?

No but I would prefer changes that are meaningful. Lets face it, the CS has had an easy ride for quite a while now. Time they woke up and smelt the coffee.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

You seem to be changing your tune here. You cannot have a well funded public sector and then strip it to the bone with mass redundancies.

I said well funded, not wastefully overfunded. Two different things. I believe the public sector could have its funding cut bt 15-20% and still be well funded if it cut its expenses and overheads to the sort of level of well run private companies.

mbga9pgf

ILW wrote: »

I said well funded, not wastefully overfunded. Two different things. I believe the public sector could have its funding cut bt 15-20% and still be well funded if it cut its expenses and overheads to the sort of level of well run private companies.

I agree. There area LOT of people in the public sector that seem to be there for little reason other than as an employment statistic. Time we re-appraised how we did things.

Tell me for example, with the advent of cheap, modern high speed computing and oodles of storage space that goes with it, how has the public sector managed to bloat back office staff so significantly over the past decade? The reverse should have happened. Fewer admin, more efficiency for the same cash.

Wookster

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I agree. There area LOT of people in the public sector that seem to be there for little reason other than as an employment statistic. Time we re-appraised how we did things.

Tell me for example, with the advent of cheap, modern high speed computing and oodles of storage space that goes with it, how has the public sector managed to bloat back office staff so significantly over the past decade? The reverse should have happened. Fewer admin, more efficiency for the same cash.

Everyone is working smarter nowadays. That is everyone except the public sector.

mbga9pgf

Wookster wrote: »

Everyone is working smarter nowadays. That is everyone except the public sector.

They will do though. We have no choice. Defence in terms of frontline services has been absolutely hammered over the past decade, because the chiefs were not allowed to make the difficult decisions they should have, cut back on CS footfall at MOD and around the country. Too political.

Instead, we saw shocking lapses in standards of equipment and servicing, which caused the deaths of a number of people, including a close friend. Whining CS need to remember this; whining on about their right to a non-job existence costs budget that could beotherwise utilised at the front line. Cut the red tape and we could save a fortune.